1.       Learned counsel for both sides were heard at length on various dates with final hearing concluding on 04.06.2024.   The challenge is to the order dated 31.01.2019 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. A-17/1103 in which Appeal filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed.  The challenge in the appeal before the State Commission was to the order dated 05.04.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Addl.Mumai Suburban (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), vide which the complaint filed by the respondents herein was allowed.

2.       Brief facts of the case have been stated by the State Commission in its order and the same are hereby reproduced for ready reference.  The original complainant-Asha Ramesh Shah filed complaint for getting balance amount of her maturity claim of Rs.10,24,659/- from opponent along with interest on that amount along with costs and compensation. She has submitted that she had taken Unit Linked Plan of Bajaj Allianz (Equity Growth Fund) from opponent. The policy was bearing No.0024457555 and it was issued for period of five years from 2006 to 2011. The annual premium of the policy was Rs.5 Lakhs. She had paid the premium amount of policy of Rs.5 Lakhs for three consecutive years. She submitted that as per terms of the policy i.e. schedule at the end of the policy period she was entitled to get guaranteed return of 14% p.a. on premium paid or the N.A.V. whichever is higher. On maturity of claim on 21/07/2011 complainant had given letter to opponent for withdrawing of her fund. At that time she had claimed amount as per policy and schedule attached to the policy. She had made claim of Rs.25,47,959/- to the opponent as per schedule of the policy. However, opponent had returned the amount of premium paid by complainant to her of Rs.15,23,300/- only to her. It is the contention of the complainant that as per schedule of the policy she is entitled to get remaining amount of Rs.10,24,659/- from the opponent. Hence, she had given notice in that respect to the opponent on 19/01/2012. On refusal by opponent, complainant filed consumer complaint against the opponent claiming above said amount from the opponent along with interest on that amount along with costs and compensation.

3.       The case of the Petitioner / Insurance Company before the Lower Fora as well as this Commission has been that the policy of complainant was Unit Linked and hence there was no guaranteed return for the said policy. They submitted that Schedule produced by the complainant along with policy is forged and fabricated document and it is not bearing signature of then CEO of opponent by name Mr.Sam Ghosh. They submitted that on the date of maturity they have already given amount to the complainant for which she was entitled to get on the basis of that policy. She is not entitled to get additional amount as she claimed from the opponent.

4.       The Petitioner further submitted that policy of complainant is Unit Linked policy. In such kind of policy there is no fixed return on the maturity of the policy. Complainant is entitled to get amount as per market prevailing at that stage. They have already paid the amount to the complainant to which she was entitled.

5.       Before the State Commission, the Petitioner has contended that they have already given a report in the Police Station and Police is investigating the matter.  The legal heirs of the original complainant on other hand contended that at the time of taking policy, opponent had provided policy of insurance along with Schedule. The Schedule is part and parcel of the insurance policy given to the complainant. As per this Schedule, complainant is entitled to get amount of Rs.25,47,959/- at the end of five years. It is so mentioned in the Schedule of the Policy. Complainant is claiming that amount accordingly from the opponent. He submitted that when it is the contention of opponent that this Schedule is forged and fabricated, then burden is on them to prove the same. However, in that respect they have not produced sufficient evidence on record. In absence of same, opponent is duty bound to pay the amount to the complainant as mentioned in the Schedule of policy.

6.       The State Commission after considering the facts of the case and evidence before it observed that there is no evidence on record that OP ( Petitioner herein) had given any letter to the complainant about lapse of her policy, hence the policy of the Complainant continued for 5 years.   In this regard, extract of relevant paras of the order of the State Commission are reproduced below :

“Appellant/opponent has mainly contested the complaint on the ground that this Schedule of Policy produced by the complainant is forged and fabricated document. In that respect opponent has also given report in the Police Station and Police investigated the matter by recording statements of witnesses. However, up till now there is no outcome of Police investigation. Hence, it has become clear that up till now Police has also not come to conclusion that the Schedule is forged and fabricated document. On perusal of the Schedule it has become clear that it is bearing signature of Mr.Sam Ghosh, then CEO of opponent along with seal of opponent. Hence, unless there is any sufficient evidence on record it cannot be considered that the Schedule of Policy produced on record by the complainant is forged and fabricated document. As per recital of this Schedule, complainant had to deposit premium of Rs.5 Lakhs for three consecutive years. After payment of this premium for three consecutive years, at the end of five years, she was entitled to get amount of Rs.25,47,959/-. In this Schedule it has been specifically mentioned that this Schedule is integral part of the policy document of complainantMrs.Asha R. Shah. It is also bearing policy number of complainant along with date of issuance of that policy. Considering all these facts and as opponent failed to bring sufficient evidence on record that this Schedule is forged and fabricated document, we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled to get amount of Rs.25,47,959/- from the opponent. However, opponent has only paid amount of rs.15,23,300/- to complainant. Hence, complainant is entitled to get balance amount of Rs.10,24,659/- from the opponent. Learned District Forum has rightly considered the same and directed the opponent to pay this much amount along with interest on that amount to the complainant. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Learned District Forum is to be confirmed by dismissing this appeal.”

7.       As Petitioner Insurance Company has contended that schedule attached to the policy, which is signed by the CEO is forged one, during the hearing on 04.10.2023 before this Commission, Petitioner was directed to submit following details / documents:

1.       Copy of the entire file of the respondents ( original to be produced for inspection on the date of hearing).

2.       Complete standard policy document for the polices issued under the same scheme.

3.       Detailed calculations of working out the amount payable to the respondents till the time of their claim i.e. Rs.15,23,300/-.

4.       An updated status on the police investigation on Schedule being fabricated / forged one, as contended  before the Fora Below.

5.       If the Schedule in question is forged / fabricated one as contended by the Petitioner, whether it has been substituted with actual Schedule.  If yes, copy of the actual Schedule as per Petitioner’s record, or whether the Schedule in question is an additional document / page produced by respondent and not part of the whole policy document.

8.       In pursuance to this order, the Petitioner filed certain documents on 27.10.2023. During the course of final hearing on 04.06.2024, it was noticed that  the Petitioner has not supplied the requisite documents under serial no.1 and 2 i.e., copy of the entire file of the Respondent. Even the original file has not produced for inspection. The counsel states that these records are not now available with them. What the Petitioner has submitted on 27^th October is copy of the policy vide page 1-24 and this cannot be presumed to be the complete file of the Respondent. The ld. Counsel for the Petitioner states that this is a computer printout of the file. Similarly, the standard policy document required under serial no. 2 has not submitted. In its place they have submitted a copy of policy issued to some other person. As regards serial no. 3 some calculations have been submitted, as regards serial no. 4 he has submitted the report from the concerned Police Station which states that the records have since been destroyed and no further information is available in this regard. As regards serial no.5 the Petitioner’s counsel contends that the schedule is forged / fabricated one and there was no such schedule along with the policy. Hence, question of providing the copy of original scheduled does not arise.

9.       We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner / Insurance Company. It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments[1] that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

10.     The State Commission has given a well reasoned order duly addressing the contentions of the Petitioner / Insurance Company and we are in agreement with its observations and findings.  Despite repeated opportunities, the Petitioner failed to place on record the original file for inspection and copy of the entire file of the respondent.  It is important to note that it is the Petitioner Insurance Company who has filed the complaint before the police with respect to forged schedule with the policy.  It was only after the order dated 04.10.2023 directing the Petitioner Insurance Company herein to file an updated status on the police investigation on Schedule being fabricated / forged one, as contended by them before the Fora below that on 30.10.2023, they wrote to the Officer Incharge of Malad Police Station seeking an update on the progress of the investigation, in response to which, the concerned police officer has replied on 30.10.2023 that record requested by the Petitioner / Insurance Company are out of date and has been destroyed.   Accordingly, there is no information available in the Malad  Police Station in respect of application of the Petitioner Insurance Company, stating further that with respect to request of the insurance company whether a case has been registered or how, the information is also not available.  This goes to show that Petitioner Insurance Company after filing the complaint with the police with respect to forged document, never pursued / followed up the matter with the police, which resulted in a situation where no status report is now available from the police.

11.     In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that there is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld.  RP lacks merit and same is dismissed.

12.     The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.